Forum menu
is it only me but does anyone else wonder (apart from Gary G ) why there have been no major rock stars accused of anything along the same lines at Jimmy S ?
Or were they all angels in the 60s/70s/80s when they may have been in a drug induced sort of way...
Not thinking of bill wyman by any chance?
is it cos rock stars were cool and sexy rock stars, whereas Jim was a mingin' old paedo...?
no stars in particular, mainly all male and at some point or other where sex symbols....so none of them took advantage...and pigs fly, bears sh1t in the woods etc etc....
so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !
so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then
I'm not sure if that defence would stand up in court
The rock stars didn't prey on the vulnerable sick and mentally disabled as the under aged groupies were flinging themselves at the rock stars. Seem to remember Ritchie Blackmore had to exit one of the US states in a hurry when it turned out one of the goupies he slept with was a minor.
Rock stars have their very own Edinburgh defence. They were researching books.
I'm not sure if that defence would stand up in court
I don't think it would either...time will tell !
so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !
Love how you are sarcastically responding to someone defending nobody, against an accusation you didn't make, regarding nobody in particular.
Top marks for sounding angry, but not yet having decided what you are angry about.
im not angry in the slightest...I wouldn't be silly enough to name any persons on the internet...
so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !
of course it wasn't okay ! What planet are you on ???
please no arguing its been a long week...
Given the stuff I've read about John Peel and as mentioned above, Bill Wyman, I believe that due to the era when all this took place, by which I mean like a 'celebrity zeitgeist' as it were, I find it kind of weird that they're being judged by todays 'moral standards', if you get my gist. It was kind of accepted in those days - young kids were queueing to see these mega-stars and I guess their real crime was taking advantage of that situation. Not that I'm condoning any of it - just thinking with my fingers on a public forum.
I doubt Mandy Smith was dragged kicking and screaming - she was simply naive...
Having put all that down I guess that kinda reads like we should've let the old war crimes go unpunished, too.
Maybe not, then...
Maybe they have not done the things Saville or Glitter has done !
Do you think this is ordinary by any chance or acceptable behaviour ?
teasel - Im on your side !
If any of the big names of rock have done wrong then of course they should be punished !
Where have I said it was/is okay...I HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY SAID ITS ACCEPTABLE !
Read the first post !
of course it wasn't okay ! What planet are you on ???
If that was for me, then you missed my point completely.
Never mind.
Jimmy Page (who plays in a Led Zep tribute band called Led Zeppelin) had his hotel guarded so noone could see him shacked up with 14 year old Lori Maddox. Lori's ex at the time was one David (and probably Angie) Bowie.
nealglover- no
i think its to folk that want an argument instead of a chat !
A friend of mine accidentally picked up the suitcase of a very famous rock star at an airport, got it home and found it full of animal porn. She had to trace him and it turned out he had her case. She had to drive to Cornwall to do that swap as for some reason he wasn't too keen to do it. Her own case had been opened and all her stuff rummaged.
Wish I could remember who it was.
pete townshend still doesnt seem to have brought his book out yet...... taking a while int it.
I find it kind of weird that they're being judged by todays 'moral standards', if you get my gist. It was kind of accepted in those days -
It wasn't socially acceptable, though. That's why it was kept covert, why it was the vulnerable who were preyed upon, and why it had been illegal since the 19the century. It's not like this is some "PC gone mad" rampage where it's illegal to tell mother in law jokes and the artists appearing on Wheeltappers are all being locked up.
I doubt Mandy Smith was dragged kicking and screaming - she was simply naive...
Sounds like a good reason to have a statutory age of consent!
What was that Rolling Stones Album cover with the pre-pubescent girl on the cover, can't see that going down well these days..
pete townshend still doesnt seem to have brought his book out yet...... taking a while int it.
I asked this question lately and my sister in law (a social worker) told me that he has indeed released a book. Not sure if anyone bought it though?
And isn't the lead singer of a band in court for something just now? something prophets? I know it's not from way back but it shows this is still going on... terrible people.
What was that Rolling Stones Album cover with the pre-pubescent girl on the cover, can't see that going down well these days..
Wasn't that a Led Zep cover? Houses of the holy?
[img] 
[/img]
It wasn't socially acceptable, though.
Really. How many blokes do you think had thoughts along the lines of [i]"Nice one, Bill - back of the net..."[/i], for example. I don't know for sure but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination, is it. I also don't think it was so covert, just ignored for the most part. As has been plastered all over the news today, kids of that time were told to stop lying or stop causing trouble if they suggested they'd experienced any sort of sexual harrassment. Open and accepted expression is a relatively recent phenomena IMO. Just progression, isn't it.
Sounds like a good reason to have a statutory age of consent!
Yeah, 'cause every child adheres to that, don't they. I know the onus is on the adult but kids will always be curious and some adults obviously don't seem to know better. I'm thinking groupies and the like; it's a very seventies thing.
Like I wrote - just thinking out loud. Times change and so do social attitudes and standards of acceptance and those that have offended should face the music, I guess...
Your 16th birthday is ace isn't it?
Thirty seconds before you pass it you are but a child, wandering around without a care in the world.
47 milliseconds after you pass it you become a clear and level headed individual with a thorough, concious and experienced viewpoint in the world.
Dirty perverts who like having sex with people who look like children are simply that. No amount of rules and laws will stop them taking advantage of inexperienced, naive, impressionable girls. All you have to do is look cool and have a leather jacket. Maybe be able to buy cider.
Punishment should be 100% directed at the little ****ers who absue these innocents. Do not consider that the girls in question might be sexually aware or even complicit. This is about the little men who feel like they are having sex with children. They know what they are doing is wrong.
Teasel its always been wrong. In the media industry though people like to think rules dont apply/its wild etc.
14/15yr old girls have always been forbidden fruit to randy self-obsessed deluded perverts
I seem to remember Bill Wyman waiting for one of his brides to become legal.....
I remember an interview in I think Sounds magazine back in the late 70s whilst a rock star(who went on to have a Number 1 ) and his band were touring.All the band ,especially the lead singer were happily watching a XXX video they had picked up in Europe featuring very young/underage girls. Possesion of such a video nowadays would probably carry a jail sentence as well as signing the Sex Offenders register.Schoolgirls were often a feature of fantasy in pornography.
Saw said singer on TV recently with his young daughters and thought at the time I wonder what he would think if his girls had been in the videos...
Edit-Just checked him on Wiki and he now holds a rather inappropriate role with aleading organisation if my memory of the above interview is accurate.
I remember an interview in I think Sounds magazine back in the late 70s whilst a rock star(whowent on to have a record breaking Number 1 )
So who was it ?
As i cannot recall the details of the interview 100% accurately nor find any trace of it I think it prudent not to say.
The clear difference is that on the one hand, there are people coming forward with evidence that Uncle Jimmy forced himself on them and committed rape.
On the other hand, the "rock stars" of which you speak were receiving the attentions of teenage girls who wanted what they wanted. Hence, no lurid stories about post-event grievances.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Plaster_Caster
Although I suppose you COULD get yourself worked up into a moral lather about it, if you were so inclined...
On the other hand, the "rock stars" of which you speak were receiving the attentions of teenage girls who wanted what they wanted. Hence, no lurid stories about post-event grievances.
Some of those teenage girls were children.
No matter how famous you are, you still have the ability to realise that having sex with children is wrong.
Although I suppose you COULD get yourself worked up into a moral lather about it, if you were so inclined...
Well, the 'moral outrage' of the media is an inevitable by-product of exposing & attempting to stop the abuse of children by those in a position of power and trust.
You cannot have one without the other.
Should we just not bother then, because it makes some people like yourself uncomfortable?
Large assumption there that it's "bothering" me, Rusty old chap.
Wanna fight?
Not really. 😀
Just found it interesting that you bothered to mention it, that's all.
Surely the 'media outrage' is an inevitable part of the process?
And would you care to comment on the first point?
Nope.
We'll let your previous comments speak for themselves then.
Well, the 'moral outrage' of the media is an inevitable by-product of exposing & attempting to stop the abuse of children by those in a position of power and trust.
I remember The Sun (I think) running a campaign maybe late 80s / early 90s featuring a skimpily clad, well endowed teenage girl who was going to be a Page 3 model, to the tune of "only a week to go till she's legal, folks" before she featured topless on her birthday. The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.
The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.
Absolutely. But again, inevitable.
Human nature - basic design flaw.
Rusty Spanner - MemberWe'll let your previous comments speak for themselves then.
That's big of you.
Human nature - basic design flaw.
"Design"?
😀
I use the phrase 'Oh God' quite a lot too.
Doesn't mean I'm a believer, but it has a purpose. 🙂
And no-one's mentioned the Blind Faith album cover yet.
I don't remember finding it offensive or titilating whilst searching record shop racks, but there was obviously some controversy about it at the time.
All boils down to the difference between art and pornography, I suppose.
To paraphrase the famous Potter Stewart quote, I can't define pornograph or art, but I know it when I see it.
Different for everyone I suppose.
The differences between JS and many of the rockstars were that on the whole, the musicians didn't coerce young women into sex, it was offered. Also, generally they were young as well, early 20s or less so there was less of an age difference.
At the time there was an acceptance that young women were willingly sexually active, hence Oz's cartoons featuring Honeybunch Kaminski and the words of the Stones' song "Stray Cat Blues".
When you say 'young women', what age range do you mean?
At the time there was an acceptance that young women were willingly sexually active, hence Oz's cartoons featuring Honeybunch Kaminski and the words of the Stones' song "Stray Cat Blues".
How widespread would you say the 'acceptance' was?
Just amongst the counterculture, certain members of the entertainment industy, paedophiles, wider society in general?